Back
M. G. UMA
S. K. Rathnamma – Appellant
Versus
Shantamma – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 24/7/2019 passed in O.S.No.774/2014 on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga, (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court' for brevity), dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession and to declare that the registered partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998 is created and not binding on the plaintiffs' share, which was confirmed in R.A.No.108/2019 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court' for brevity) vide judgment and decree ydtd. 24/11/2020.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.774/2014 against defendant Nos.1 to 5 for partition and separate possession of the Schedule Property. The Schedule appended to the plaint refers to the agricultural land, measuring 6 acres in Sy.No.107/1, situated at Santhekadur Village, Nidige Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk with the boundaries mentioned therein.
4
The court affirmed that ancestral property remains so despite partition, and daughters are entitled to equal shares under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended.
Previous family partition and lack of joint family status preclude the plaintiff from claiming coparcenary rights under Hindu law amendments.
The plaintiff, as the legatee of Lakshmidevamma under the Will, stands in the place of Lakshmidevamma. Lakshmidevamma was entitled to be treated as a regular coparcener of the Hindu joint family orig....
The court reaffirmed that daughters have equal rights as sons in ancestral properties, emphasizing the applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
The court established that unregistered documents affecting rights in immovable property are inadmissible in evidence, and that joint family properties are subject to partition among all rightful hei....
The court clarified the interpretation of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act and held that it did not apply in this case, as it had been repealed and the plaintiffs had a right to seek partition ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
